User talk:Trezatium/Archive 1

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

–  Sango  123    (e)  23:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Wikipedia: page view statistics
I put these numbers in a few weeks ago. When I looked at the daily traffic stats for the wikimedia cluster at http://noc.wikimedia.org/reqstats/reqstats-daily.png I saw it varying between 2000 and 7000 views per second, depending on the time of day. Unfortunately this data appears to be only intermittently available.

Page views have increased by at least a factor of 10 since October 2004 according to Alexa.com, and the data was not reliable even then because HTML caching (which is not logged) was taking over an increasing proportion of the load. The stats page would suggest that the load barely increasing between July 2004 and October 2004, which is certainly not correct. According to Alexa's graph the traffic increased by at least 50% over that period.

If Apple is in the top ten and we're not then Nielsen's data is simply incorrect because we get three times more visitors than Apple. However, I think their "audience" means unique vistors, which would roughly correspond to Alexa's "reach". Some tens of millions of unique visitors sounds about right.

I calculate that at an average of 4500 hits per second, and 5 pages per user we get about 540 million user visits per week, which makes sense since many vistors will look at wikipedia several times a week.

I think that 2000-7000 is correct, but until the reqstats graph is back up I can't prove it to you. However data from "2005 MySQL Application of the Year" at MySQL gives 200 million hits per day (or 2300 per second), which supports my claim. I hope you don't mind, but I prefer to change it to "over 2000 page views per second". GeorgeStepanek\talk 14:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

AIDS reapprasal
I like most of you edits. However, this is a article that has been under intense edit warring, in which both sides tried to insert POV. I have acted as a neutral outsider, and do not much editing myself. I personally do not take much of their claims serious, but that does not mean that I agree with removal of anything that does not fit the mai dogma. KimvdLinde 20:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this article for a while. I'm not interested in pushing a particular POV. My aim is to improve accuracy and neutrality in line with Wikipedia's policies. Please let me know if you think I'm going astray. Trezatium 20:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with most what you do, and if not, I will raise the discussion at the talk page. KimvdLinde 21:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * After some quite intensive editing, I've decided to withdraw (at least for a while) and leave other people to have a go at this article. I hope they'll act on some of my suggestions, though. Trezatium 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The turmoils of Trezatium
Hey, Trezatium. YOU GOT THE WRONG PAPER. The actual paper is


 * Conley, L.J. and Holmerg, S.D. 1992. Transmission of AIDS from blood screened negative for antibody to the human immunodeficiency virus. NEJM 326:1499.

YOU QUOTED


 * JW Ward, SD Holmberg, JR Allen, DL Cohn, SE Critchley, SH Kleinman, BA Lenes, O Ravenholt, JR Davis, MG Quinn, and et al. Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by blood transfusions screened as negative for HIV antibody. Volume 318:473-478 February 25, 1988 Number 8

Nice try. Either

(a) You're too stupid to find the article Perth ACTUALLY referenced,

or

(b) You're too naive to think I'd actually take the time to check to see if you wouldn't try to pull a fast one by me.

Take your pick. I don't care which is the case. Either way, it's YOU with egg on your face. Darin 198.59.190.201 14:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm just stupid. The articles have similar titles, appeared in the same journal and share an author, so I must have clicked on the wrong result in Google or Pubmed. I should have been more careful. I'm not interested in scoring points off you or anyone else, I'm just trying to ensure that the information in Wikipedia is accurate and unbiased, so I'm grateful to you for pointing out my mistake. Trezatium 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Some follow-up studies of people with indeterminate WB test results

 * The MACS researchers (1992) say that, "Our results suggest that persistently EIA-negative homosexual/bisexual men who have indeterminate WB assays are unlikely to be infected with HIV-1."


 * This study (1992) found that, "By all other criteria including polymerase chain reaction analysis, samples from 17 of 19 individuals remained negative for HIV-1 at each time point. Two individuals evolved from an indeterminate to a positive Western blot and, simultaneously, from a negative to a positive polymerase chain reaction analysis, during follow-up."


 * In this study (1991), "The absence of HIV infection in 97 of 98 donors with indeterminate Western blot patterns was confirmed by clinical follow-up, Western blot assays of sequential samples, and negative gene amplification results."


 * This study (1992) found that, "Indeterminate Western blot results reflect nonspecific reactivity in most instances but should nevertheless lead to the exclusion of technical artefacts, seroconversion, and HIV-2 infection."


 * This study (1989) found that, "blood donors with persistent or intermittent anti-p24gag reactivity in HIV-1 Western Blot, without development of antibodies to other HIV-encoded proteins in later blood samples, do not transmit the described retroviruses to transfused patients."


 * This study (1990) found that, "No reciepient of WBi [indeterminate Western Blot] blood became EIA positive, true positive for WB, positive for HIV-1 antigen, or positive for EIA reactivity against recombinant p24 or gp41. The polymerase chain reaction was negative for gag and env HIV-1 sequences in all donors and recipients."


 * This study (1990) concluded that, "persons at low risk for HIV infection who have persistent indeterminate HIV-1 Western blots are rarely if ever infected with HIV-1 or HIV-2."


 * In this study (1991), "Eighty-nine individuals with prior repeatedly reactive EIA and indeterminate Western blots were followed prospectively to study the risk of seroconversion and specificity of supplemental tests. Four high-risk cases seroconverted within 10 months after enrollment (seroconversion risk, 4.5%, 95% confidence interval, 1.2%-11.1%)."


 * This study (1995) concludes that, "Long-term follow-up of Western blot-indeterminate blood donors does not reveal evidence of HIV-infection."


 * In this study (1994), "Eighty-three individuals with indeterminate Western blot results were followed-up and new serum samples were collected. None of the follow-up samples became positive."


 * This study (1993) concludes that, "According to our experience and the literature on the subject, we suggest that patients with low risk of infection and whose WBi [indeterminate Western Blot] does not modify with time have a remote possibility of being infected by HIV."


 * In this study (1993), "Applying polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to 29 indeterminate samples out of approximately 125,000 blood donations it was found that 2 of them were IgM-positive and also contained HIV-1-specific DNA sequences. Eleven months later 1 of these 2 donors was retested and found IgM and PCR negative."


 * In contrast to all of the above, this study (1998) found that 74% of 35 Rhode Island prisoners with indeterminate WB results later seroconverted, which the authors say, "is the highest rate of seroconversion ever reported for persons with indeterminate WB test results."

In summary: An indeterminate Western Blot test result usually indicates either a recent HIV infection or a non-specific antibody reaction. Among those at low risk of HIV infection, the latter is more likely; among some groups at high risk of HIV infection, the former may be more likely. Someone who has a persistently indeterminate result is highly unlikely to be infected with HIV. Trezatium 20:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comment underscores the problems with HIV/AIDS "thinking". I assemble a set of quotes clearly indicating X, and you "rebut" them by a "summary" which directly contradicts the findings of the quotes I assembled. But this is a typical tactic of AIDS researchers. 69.252.201.61 04:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What I attempted to do was conduct a reasonably thorough, unbiased review of the available literature. The results of this review do indeed directly contradict your quotes, which I believe were cherry-picked in order to promote a particular point of view. I agree that this example is typical of debates about AIDS aetiology: when was the last time you came across a dissident conducting a systematic review or meta-analysis? Trezatium 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's nice. I present a series of quotes, and you rebut with a completely unreferenced, unsourced, ambiguous "unbiased review" conducted by Trezatium truly, with the requisite conclusion that referenced quotes were "cherry-picked". You still do not seem to understand the main point of my previous post: IF "AMONG THOSE AT LOW RISK OF HIV INFECTION, THE LATTER [A NON-SPECIFIC ANTIBODY REACTION] IS MORE LIKELY [WHEN WB INDETERMINATE RESULTS OCCUR]", WHY DOES THIS NOT CALL INTO QUESTION POSITIVE RESULTS??? As you certainly must know, the ONLY difference between "indeterminate" and "positive" results is the number and/or combination of "HIV-specific" protein bands in the WB. If SO MANY people who are HIV-negative test WB indeterminate, because of non-specific antibodies [between 20-40% of ELISA-negatives], there is certainly reason to suspect that so-called "HIV-WB positives" [who only differ from "indeterminates" by having more and/or a different combination of [by your admission] "non-specific" protein bands, are not really infected at all, either! But have your way. This is my experience with [true] denialists -- when push comes to shove, and scientifically against a wall -- claim the "massive evidence" in their favor [never referenced or sourced] and accuse dissidents of "cherry-picking". Sorry, that tactic isn't working anymore. Stay tuned to Larry King Live for details in the next 12 months. 69.252.201.61 02:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I should stress that I'm not claiming to be an expert on the Western Blot HIV test. What I've been trying to do is establish the consensus opinion from the scientific literature. My understanding is that the vast majority of indeterminate WB results (excluding those that represent seroconversion) contain only one or two bands and look very different to positive results (regardless of local protocol). If you have information indicating otherwise then please let me know.

As for my review, I admit it was conducted quite quickly, but I did try to make it representative. It is certainly not unsourced: I've provided a link to the abstract of each study. Feel free to conduct a review of your own. Trezatium 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're a brave person...
... for taking on the AIDS reappraisal, Peter Duesberg, etc pages. Thanks for the constructive response to my edits. I'm expecting a firestorm of anonymous hatemail, but it hasn't happened yet. Perhaps I'm being too cynical. MastCell 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the changes you've made to AIDS reappraisal, which is becoming an OK article. I hope you'll continue to keep an eye on it. Trezatium 20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

List of people in AIDS-related deaths but absent from List of HIV-positive people
This is a list of people in Category:AIDS-related deaths but absent from List of HIV-positive people.

(List removed when it became redundant.)

There are also more people who died of AIDS but are absent from both the list and the AIDS-related deaths category. To find some of them, try this Google search.


 * Hi, I crosschecked that link I mentioned on the talk page of the list. See User:Garion96/Sandbox2 for a list of people with a wikipedia article and not in the list. I haven't checked (yet) if they all are in the category AIDS-related deaths. I will add them to the list (slowly), and then we can always see if we need to divide the list. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your work on the list is impressive! Trezatium 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Garion96 (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I worked through all of the results generated by the Google link above, and turned up three new additions for the list. Similar Google searches may turn up more candidates for inclusion. Trezatium 21:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

AIDS and Majid Musisi
Hi Trezatium, I understood Majid Musisi died of AIDS on the Turkish Wikipedia. Gruesome Gary.


 * Thanks, but without a reliable reference we can't add him to the list of HIV-positive people. Trezatium 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to that one Turkish source I found he didn't died of AIDS. See this message on my talk. Garion96 (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

List of HIV-positive people
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I did an overhaul on List of HIV-positive people. Some entries could be in a better section probably (still looking at it) but I think it's more practical this way. See also List of notable brain tumor patients. Also, if you are ever bored and are looking for something to do..:) I put all the entries I couldn't source (only IMDB and blogs and the like) on User:Garion96/Sandbox2. Garion96 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the new list looks great - well done. I might have a go at some of those names at some point, but not right now. Trezatium 13:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Garion96 (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The list now has 262 entries, compared to 149 just eight days ago. Trezatium 13:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it OK for me to remove the above list from my talk page?


 * Sure, they are now all in the list or in my sandbox anyway. I saw you changed the intro, it still needs to be changed though. The way it is now Makgatho Mandela for instance could not be added. He didn't really made a significant contribution to his chosen field. Garion96 (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I've tweaked the intro, but perhaps it should be a bit more precise. Trezatium 14:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think now the intro is good and thanks for some tidying up. Also, you don't have to have a wikilink everytime though. One time American links to United States is enough per article or at least section. Garion96 (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry about that - I got a bit carried away. Trezatium 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review/List of HIV-positive people
I put the article up for peer review. Garion96 (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of nominating it for featured list soon. Since you also worked a lot on this list, do you have time this week, and if you want to of course, to address comments if they would come up? Garion96 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have much time available, but I'll do what I can. I'm usually online around this time of day. Trezatium 19:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I will put it up for FLC. Btw, that reference you just added for Balagoon is incorrect. Garion96 (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That was clumsy - I copied another reference as a template and failed to replace the URL. I usually check the link. Trezatium 20:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With so many entries that's easy to understand. I fixed it already though. Garion96 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's up for FLC here. Garion96 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
I'm giving this to both you and Garion 96. Paste it wherever you want it to go on your user page. Excellent work!  Durova  01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
It's now a featured list, thanks for all the work. Now only to find some sources for the sandbox entries, which is quite difficult unfortunately. Garion96 (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done to you, too. The reviews couldn't have been much better. Trezatium 15:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A model Wikipedian
I'm really impressed with your ability to maintain equanimity and keep a cool head on contentious topics, and in the face of verbal abuse and goading. It's an inspiration for those of us who sometimes let others push their buttons more than we should. Peace. MastCell 18:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome
A pleasure to have been of service. (Calm would be good, and so would a realization that calling someone a FUCKTARD in all-caps doesn't really advance discourse! I'm not sure if either will be forthcoming, though! Ditto on the mastocyte's comments above :) - Nunh-huh 18:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks and compliments to both of you. Trezatium 19:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again...
... for this. Guess you saved me a phone call :) MastCell 21:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your note
''Darin, if I believed what you do then I too would feel frustrated. But you must realise that aggression is not going to help further your cause; rather it's likely to get you blocked. You do have some specialist knowledge and I'd like to see you contribute constructively to the AIDS reappraisal articles, but first you'll have to accept that most people disagree with you and they aren't likely to change their minds. And for the record, I don't have any affiliation with the pharma industry. If I did, don't you think I might spend more time promoting my company's products and less time editing List of HIV-positive people or AIDS reappraisal? Trezatium 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)''


 * "... first you'll have to accept that most people disagree with you and they aren't likely to change their minds". Agreed, not too likely at Idiotpedia. Which is why I'm devoting my time more efficiently to other websites. The orthodoxy is in terrible shape and will likely collapse in the next 12 months. And Wikipedia readers will be the LAST to know, of course. 69.252.201.61 04:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See my comments at Image talk:Hiv-timecourse.png. 129.24.141.64 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced HIV people
Hi, little bit late reply to your message. I am out of my country right now so no easy computer access. Not good for my wiki addiction. :) Regarding your message. Yes, that seems like a good idea. It might encourage people to find a source. Although it wouldn't work for living people. See also WP:BLP. Garion96 (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tnx for the welcome back. My wiki addiction is growing again... :) Concerning living persons, if there is no reliable source stating that a living person has HIV you can't state on the talk page of his or her article (or in the article itself for that matter) that the person might be hiv infected. That is per Biographies of living persons. Since that definitely would be considered "controversial material" Garion96 (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly true. Thanks for the clarification. Trezatium 21:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever considered...
... applying for adminship? I've been impressed with your research/contributions and with your ability to keep cool, respect neutrality, and de-escalate conflict on controversial pages. I think you'd make a very good admin. It's a big time and effort commitment, but if you have any interest in applying, I'd support you. Happy holidays. MastCell 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and the same to you too. I'm not prepared at present to make the necessary commitment, but I'll let you know if I ever change my mind. Trezatium 16:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Case in point - your patient, content-focused response to User:159.105.80.219 on Talk:Duesberg hypothesis (whereas I couldn't see past the horrifying contrib history...) MastCell 22:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did consider commenting on the user history but was too lazy. It reminds me of this user, who'll deny just about anything. I thought your responses to David Crowe were very patient. Trezatium 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... those 2 IP's are likely the same user (both map to St. Johnsbury, VT and share some... pronounced... interests). One of them is tagged as a potential sock puppet of User:Jtpaladin... hmm... there do seem to be a few similarities. Ah well. MastCell 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the sourcing of the image at List of HIV-positive people
I noticed that you are involved with List of HIV-positive people and are generally interested in AIDS and HIV. You may then be interested in the status of Image:Pedro Zamora.jpg; it is currently a candidate for speedy deletion. I nominated it thus because the current source is http://images.google.com/; I do not consider that to be a valid source. I have detailed my rationale on the image description page. If you wish to, please comment at relevant talk page and not at my talk page. I am watching Image:Pedro Zamora.jpg and will reply promptly. Thank you &mdash; Iamunknown 02:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced HIV people
Hi, I am finally back in my country so I can do some more wiki stuff now. I added Gerald Chapman (director) to the list. I'll take Jud's word for it. Also good job on all those comments on the talk pages. I saw them popping up on my watchlist. I hope it will help. Garion96 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks and welcome back. The comment has already produced one more addition to the list. However progress may be slow as most of the articles are quite obscure and rarely edited. Trezatium 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

AIDS reappraisal rewrite
Hi there... when you have a moment, I'm curious as to your opinion on the rewrite of AIDS reappraisal. MastCell 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it. It's more encyclopedic and more clearly differentiated from the Duesberg hypothesis article, which retains some of the point-counterpoint stuff. Trezatium 19:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for tidying it up further. MastCell 20:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page messages
We got another (second one I believe?) positive response (with a reliable source) from your messages. See Talk:Xavier Fourcade. So it is working, albeit slowly. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good. And well done for finding a reference for Paul Giovanni. (Perhaps you should add a note to the discussion page of the Giovanni article to say that a source has been found?) Trezatium 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just did so. Still wouldn't mind a better source for that one. Garion96 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Eve
Sorry about that - i genuinely didn't notice because i didnt expect her to be listed in "Miscellanous" - i was looking at Activists where Ryan White was. PMA 13:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Trezatium 20:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Cabal
Congratulations - it appears we (with User:Nunh-huh, User:Grcampbell, and "others") have our very own cabal. (See and ). MastCell Talk 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I admit to having collaborated quite closely with yourself but not with the other two. Do two editors working together have much more power than one? If there's a problem with AIDS Reappraisal it's that us two seem to be the only people who take an active interest in it these days (Revolver's outbursts aside). Trezatium 18:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, and was blocked for a month in the context of a very interesting discussion at Talk:Harvey Bialy - although he continues to edit occasionally from . User:Nunh-huh pops in from time to time at Christine Maggiore, but other than that I don't interact much with him/her, and I've not come across User:Grcampbell to my knowledge. Nonetheless, facts never get in the way of a good conspiracy theory... MastCell Talk 18:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)